It seems after countless days of gop conservative chicken hawk lies, the troops who actually had to do the fighting are turning against the maniacal rantings of rightwing nuts and war mongers. Vets feel that Obama has the best plan and that Romnuts will not only keep the current conflicts going, but likely start a new war.
Of course the chicken hawk posters here on cp never spent a day in combat, so they are quick to run their mouths while compaining constantly about things that are way above their pay grade.
http://news.yahoo.com/weary-warriors-favor-obama-131752838.html
Most of the RP's know about my military experience. I served as an officer in Vietnam, but not in a combat assignment, and had only sporadic, short contact with the enemy.
I respectfully must disagree with the OP. Soldiers today, yesterday, and tomorrow, want to be allowed to win. Last year, when President Obama announced a cutback in the number of troops in Afganistan, I cried and felt personally betrayed. How do you think you might feel if you were staring down the barrel of a weapon and suddenly half of your friends turned around and walked away, leaving you all alone. But you are expected to do the same job as yesterday, with fewer people?
Today's GI's are nothing if not totally exhausted and demoralized by year after year of constant deployment. These people have served more time in contact than any other soldiers in American history. They feel betrayed by the politicians.There are people in Afghanistan who have been sent overseas NINE or TEN times for six months at a stretch. The active combat phase of American involvement in WWII lasted in total less than three and a half years. Although they had been drafted for "the duration plus six-months," most of them spent considerably less time in contact.
In Vietnam most people served for one year, unless they volunteered for another tour, and despite all of the millions of people who claim to have been Green Berets or Navy Seals, only one in ten served in combat assignments, and of the millions who served in Vietnam, only a thousand or two were ever in special forces. Nevertheless, we thought we could place some faith in our Presidents, most of whom had military experience. How do you think you would feel if you were suddenly placed under the command of an officer who didn't even know how to render a proper hand salute?
What the OP also doesn't understand is that active duty military personnel are very carefully spoonfed their news, so as not to interfere with their will to fight. Admittedly they have much better sources of information today than we did before the advent of the computer age. Still, they are told only what their commanders are allowed to tell them by their commanders.
According to my dad it was true in WWII and I can tell you that it was definately true during the Vietnam war. In Vietnam even I, as an officer, did not have official knowledge of what was going on in the in the World (GI slang for home). We only heard the truth from officers who were rotating in and out.
Non-career enlisted personnel are almost always quite young and have little education beyond high school. For decades it has been a truism that idealistic young people tend towards liberalism. Young people tend to be easily influenced by people in authority over them. In Vietnam, most of the EM were teenagers, and they did not have the right to vote. Senior EM are usually more mature and better educated, but they are also a minority. Prior to 1967, officers could be placed in combat leadership positions six-months after they graduated from high school!
The young men and women returning home today deserve our unreserved respect, admiration, and gratitude. In the not-so-distant future, they will become the leaders of our country. We must never forget what they have done for us, and they deserve to be treated as "special."
Sorry, but I felt compelled to share this. My memories are as vivid today as they were when I was discharged almost fifty years ago.
